3 ms·

Maybe a tangent, but I feel framing punishment/retaliation as "consequences" (remarking along the lines of "it's almost as if actions have consequences") often

by Ukv 2y ago

Maybe a tangent, but I feel framing punishment/retaliation as "consequences" (remarking along the lines of "it's almost as if actions have consequences") often serves the purpose of treating the retaliation as if it's an inevitable rule of nature, just the way things are, opposed to an act that should itself be questioned - and potentially fought instead of "accept[ed]". Punishment/retaliation can be seen as a specific type of consequence (one that is intentionally enacted by someone as retribution) so it's not that the framing is technically incorrect, but it seems to put it on the same level as "I threw a basketball upwards and it came back down to hit me in the face".

daft_pink 2y ago
I'm not suggesting that holding up a sign and marching down the street should be punished, but the protests over the past few years involved extensive property damage and assault and theft and seizure of property. I'm not sure why anyone would think they could attack someone, vandalize, steal or destroy others property or trespassing and receiving extensive warning to leave wouldn't have consequences.
- Ukv 2y ago
  The protests here were non-violent and non-destructive, to my understanding. But in all cases, what I'm conjecturing is that the "actions have consequences" framing distracts from challenging the authority's own actions. With what I argue is the more honest framing, you could still conclude that a punishment (such as for a violent protest) really was justified - just that you'd have to defend that on the grounds of that retaliation being beneficial to society, opposed to a lazy "well it was expected" as if it's an immutable rule not subject to moral judgement. Or to put it another way: * If you step out in front of a car, the driver couldn't stop in time, and thus it rams into you - that's a consequence of your action * If you step out in front of a car, the driver sees you and stops in time, but then later decides to intentionally ram into you to teach you a lesson - that's punishment/retaliation Your action and the end result are the same in both cases. Yet while "what did you expect?" may be valid for the consequence in the first case, that same outcome as an intentional retaliation is clearly excessive and unjust. We, rightly, apply vastly different standards to natural consequences and intentional retaliation - and thus shouldn't frame a retaliation as a consequence by ignoring the moral agency of the driver/authority. > I'm not sure why anyone would think they could [...] wouldn't have consequences. Why is it only the authority's actions that are treated as immutable? If you flip it to treating the protestor's actions as immutable, you could say: * If the university invests in Israeli corporations/weapons manufacturers and hosts a former IDF soldier to talk on Israel, why would they not think there would be repercussions? They should just accept the consequences of their actions.
  - daft_pink 2y ago
    I don’t feel the claim that the protest was nonviolent is accurate. I also feel that vandalism and property destruction is something an average person would assume would be punishable and have consequences. The NYPD entering Hamilton Hall was widely broadcast on television and to say that’s the type of protest that wouldn’t warrant consequences is insane. It goes beyond simply exercising the right to free speech.

by Ukv 2y ago

daft_pink 2y ago

I'm not suggesting that holding up a sign and marching down the street should be punished, but the protests over the past few years involved extensive property damage and assault and theft and seizure of property. I'm not sure why anyone would think they could attack someone, vandalize, steal or destroy others property or trespassing and receiving extensive warning to leave wouldn't have consequences.

Ukv 2y ago
The protests here were non-violent and non-destructive, to my understanding. But in all cases, what I'm conjecturing is that the "actions have consequences" framing distracts from challenging the authority's own actions. With what I argue is the more honest framing, you could still conclude that a punishment (such as for a violent protest) really was justified - just that you'd have to defend that on the grounds of that retaliation being beneficial to society, opposed to a lazy "well it was expected" as if it's an immutable rule not subject to moral judgement. Or to put it another way: * If you step out in front of a car, the driver couldn't stop in time, and thus it rams into you - that's a consequence of your action * If you step out in front of a car, the driver sees you and stops in time, but then later decides to intentionally ram into you to teach you a lesson - that's punishment/retaliation Your action and the end result are the same in both cases. Yet while "what did you expect?" may be valid for the consequence in the first case, that same outcome as an intentional retaliation is clearly excessive and unjust. We, rightly, apply vastly different standards to natural consequences and intentional retaliation - and thus shouldn't frame a retaliation as a consequence by ignoring the moral agency of the driver/authority. > I'm not sure why anyone would think they could [...] wouldn't have consequences. Why is it only the authority's actions that are treated as immutable? If you flip it to treating the protestor's actions as immutable, you could say: * If the university invests in Israeli corporations/weapons manufacturers and hosts a former IDF soldier to talk on Israel, why would they not think there would be repercussions? They should just accept the consequences of their actions.
- daft_pink 2y ago
  I don’t feel the claim that the protest was nonviolent is accurate. I also feel that vandalism and property destruction is something an average person would assume would be punishable and have consequences. The NYPD entering Hamilton Hall was widely broadcast on television and to say that’s the type of protest that wouldn’t warrant consequences is insane. It goes beyond simply exercising the right to free speech.